Author
Topic: I'm questioning many things, since UR has came to me. (Read 5583 times)

rockclimber

i've been in the bible all my life, never questioning the validity of the bible or the necessity of the cross, but rather always felling it my duty to defend the validity of the bible. not so much now. i've believed ur now for about 1 year. i am all greatfull of jesus' life, he showed me how to live, he lead me to god.

jesus cannot be the only way to the father. someone can go to the father, without useing jesus or the cross or the bible as the route .the bible is gods word, not gods words. their are other books that are also gods word.

i wrote these as statements, but really these are some of the conflicts or questions i have in this new belief.

i've been in the bible all my life, never questioning the validity of the bible or the necessity of the cross, but rather always felling it my duty to defend the validity of the bible. not so much now. i've believed ur now for about 1 year. i am all greatfull of jesus' life, he showed me how to live, he lead me to god.

jesus cannot be the only way to the father. someone can go to the father, without useing jesus or the cross or the bible as the route .the bible is gods word, not gods words. their are other books that are also gods word.

i wrote these as statements, but really these are some of the conflicts or questions i have in this new belief.

If Jesus is not the only way to the Father than there is no way. He is the only way. If Christ had not died for all mankind, all mankind could not be saved.No one can go to the Father unless Christ died for them.Though "word" is singular in "the word of God" it stands for the plurality of all the words contained withing God's word. The Bible, being a collection of many thousands of words is called "God's word."

I doubt that other works outside of the canonical bible are inspired by God and therefore would not be what one would call "God's word."

Logged

Just because God says He will save all mankinddoes not necessarily mean He won't.

I agree. God has chosen to join together all things in Christ. The thoughts of the original poster reflect one of the reasons that I do not like the term "Universalist" as it implies to many that there are is more than one path to God. Even putting the word "Christian" in front of Universalist brings confusion to many.

I much prefer referring to the doctrine of UR or the belief in the ultimate reconciliation of all things unto God and steer away from the Universalist label. This was one of my hesitations to the young man who was "starting" the Christian Universalist International group or whatever.

You cannot go wrong with sticking to Biblical terms as the reconciling or restitution of all things in Biblical, but I have not seen Universalist in the Bible so far.

rockclimber

that is what i've alway believed but i'm believing more towards what amanda said.

its hard for me to believe that followers of allah aren't following god. their are many islamic people that dedicate their lives to knowing allah or god. are real followers of christ, closer to god than they are?their are many other beliefs/religions that follow and are devoted to a god of love, peace, and forgiveness, but don't know christ as savior. when all is said and done they chose to live their lives for god, as do we.

that is what i've alway believed but i'm believing more towards what amanda said.

its hard for me to believe that followers of allah aren't following god. their are many islamic people that dedicate their lives to knowing allah or god. are real followers of christ, closer to god than they are?their are many other beliefs/religions that follow and are devoted to a god of love, peace, and forgiveness, but don't know christ as savior. when all is said and done they chose to live their lives for god, as do we.

JESUS remains the ONLY WAY to the Father... and the Father's name is NOT ALLAH, His name is YHVH...

The NAME ...JESUS, actually means YHVH saves...

There is more to this than name confusion, it is Spirit confusion...

All these (islamics, buddhists, scientologists, ...whatever) shall have to come thru the CROSS RC...

They, as will the MAJORITY of Humanity, find that pathway in the NEXT LIFE... not in this one... And this is IN GOD's hands and of HIS DECISION...

I think He is, but... many have made this an exclusive statement instead of an inclusive one. I think when Jesus said "No one can come to the father except through me" He was saying, "No matter which path you follow, I will be there. No matter where you go, there I am. Whenever you come to the father, you come to me. Whenever you reach out to God, you reach out to Me. I am every path and every path leads through me." See, inclusive. Jesus is Love, not division, not exclusive. Therefore, Jesus is the only way, and it is every way.

Quote

someone can go to the father, without useing jesus or the cross or the bible as the route .

Right! One doesn't need the cross or the Bible, one needs Love. One goes to the father through love, and Jesus is love.

Quote

the bible is gods word, not gods words. their are other books that are also gods word.

The Bible is not God's word, it is man's word about God. Jesus is God's Word, Love.

Right! One doesn't need the cross or the Bible, one needs Love. One goes to the father through love, and Jesus is love.

2Co 5:18 Now all these things are from God, who reconciled us to Himself through Christ and gave us the ministry of reconciliation, 19 namely, that God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and He has committed to us the word of reconciliation.

Col 1:19 For it was the Father's good pleasure for all the fullness to dwell in Him (Jesus) , 20 and through Him (Jesus) to reconcile all things to Himself, having made peace through the blood of His cross; through Him (Jesus), I say, whether things on earth or things in heaven.

It seems pretty clear God is using His Son as the only way to Himself, and the blood of the cross is the only way. You can not be reconciled without the Christ

Joh 14:24 "He who does not love Me does not keep My words (Logos); and the word (Logos) which you hear is not Mine, but the Father's who sent Me.

Heb 1:1 God, after He spoke long ago to the fathers in the prophets in many portions and in many ways, 2 in these last days has spoken to us in His Son…

Logos – (By Juan Baixeras) This word is translated in English as "Word". It is not as some would have you believe Jesus' middle name. Jesus is not called Jesus Logos of Nazareth. This word has an actual meaning which has been almost completely lost due to the Greek philosophical interpretation of John 1:1-3 & 14. First, Jesus is not the "Word." The same word "logos" appears in Revelation 20:4-5:

"I also saw the souls of those who had been beheaded for their testimony to Jesus and for the word (logos) of God."

Notice that they were beheaded for their testimony to Jesus AND for the logos of God. Jesus and the word of God are not the same thing. Word of God in this verse means God's plan of salvation for us (NAB), i.e. the kingdom of God message. So what does "logos" mean?

Logos - 1. Denotes an internal reasoning process, plan, or intention, as well as an external word. 2. The expression of thought. As embodying a conception or idea (NAB & VED).

I will give you a brief paraphrase of John 1:1-3 using the definitions for "logos:"

"In the beginning was God's plan, will, or idea for our salvation. It was present in his mind, and God's plan or will possessed all the attributes of God."

The Roman Catholic New American Bible has this comment on this verse:

"Lack of a definite article with "God" in Greek signifies predication rather than identification."

Predication - to affirm as a quality or attribute (Webster's Dictionary).

So how does the Word (logos) become flesh in John 1:14? Let me use an example which most of us can relate to. We are all familiar with the expression, "was this baby planned?" Let's say it was planned. You and your wife had a plan to have a baby. You had a logos, a plan. Your plan (logos) became flesh the day that your baby was born. In the same way, God's plan of salvation for us became a reality, became flesh, when Jesus was born. The reason being that to someone educated in Greek philosophy such as the early church fathers of the 3rd, 4th, and 5th, centuries, logos had an entirely different meaning. Tertullian who was responsible for much of the creation of the trinity was a Stoic lawyer. The Stoics defined "logos" as the "divine principle of life." Which is basically a definition of God. With this definition you are going to arrive at a completely different interpretation than what John intended. You will interpret it something like this:

"In the beginning was the divine principle of life, and the divine principle of life was with God, and the divine principle of life was God. Then, the divine principle of life became flesh."

With this definition you arrive at the conclusion that the divine principle of life, which is God, became flesh. Now you have God's essence in two places at once. The explanation for this obvious problem came in the form of the Doctrine of the Trinity. Then you have God's essence in flesh, so the description of Jesus becomes that he is fully God and fully man. These concepts come straight out of Greek philosophy. Greek philosophers believed that man was composed of flesh and a divine spark. You decide which definition is correct, Greek philosophy's or John's Jewish definition.

Casstranquility

It seems pretty clear God is using His Son as the only way to Himself, and the blood of the cross is the only way. You can not be reconciled without the Christ

I said that. :) Reconciliation happens through love, and the Christ is Love. I do not believe in this "cross" thing. Or this "blood" thing. Taken literally, it means nothing to me. In symbolic terms, yes, we are saved by the life of love-the blood of the Christ (not literal blood.) We are saved through the tranformation of death to life (the cross-symbolically). I'll never understand it literally.

Now, I want you to rent Mel Gibson's movie. " The Passion of the Christ". Here at the cross will you see true love. You will see raw love in action! Not some touchy "feely," feel good love, but Love in action!

Jesus suffered Casstranquility!

Do you want to see love? Then watch this movie! It speaks more than a million words that I could even begin to post! For it is the Son of your God doing the suffering for you, me and the rest of the world.

It seems pretty clear God is using His Son as the only way to Himself, and the blood of the cross is the only way. You can not be reconciled without the Christ

I said that. :) Reconciliation happens through love, and the Christ is Love. I do not believe in this "cross" thing. Or this "blood" thing. Taken literally, it means nothing to me. In symbolic terms, yes, we are saved by the life of love-the blood of the Christ (not literal blood.) We are saved through the tranformation of death to life (the cross-symbolically). I'll never understand it literally.

Hey Cass.....I think we each have different ways of relating to God.......and our conception of Him....and how he relates to us. An interesting analogy is how many young women feel more loved when their spouse is controlling, jealous, and wants them to give up everything for them......to the point where the jealousy can turn into rage and ends in death.

I think it's interesting when the scriptures talk about God being a jealous God. It's like I can see God's passion/intense love at one end of the spectrum where is appears controlling and jealous in the darkness (brings death).........and at the other end His love feels light, joyfull and freeing (brings life).

Casstranquility

Hey Cass.....I think we each have different ways of relating to God.......and our conception of Him....and how he relates to us.

I agree.

Quote

An interesting analogy is how many young women feel more loved when their spouse is controlling, jealous, and wants them to give up everything for them......to the point where the jealousy can turn into rage and ends in death.

I do not quite understand, are there many women who feel loved when their spouses treat them like that?

Quote

I think it's interesting when the scriptures talk about God being a jealous God. It's like I can see God's passion/intense love at one end of the spectrum where is appears controlling and jealous in the darkness (brings death)

Hmm, I do not see God as a jealous God myself, I find it more zealous than jealous. The only death I have found His intense passion to bring is death of the ego, death of hate, death of guilt, and this love that brings death brings life in the same wave.

Any thing specific or just life in general? My suffering is more general, not any real physical pain so to say. Sissy stuff! I'm a R.N., I spend many hours in the ICU looking at patients who are suffering too, but they suffer physically. Many would love to only suffer like me. I have held the hands of many (Hundreds) dying patients just before they left this world. I can not tell you how many times, I've seen a warm loving person turn into a cold hard corpse in just a few minutes. You have no idea how fast it happens! You can see it mostly in their eyes! It's unexplainable. The eyes! You know they are gone! I have been a nurse for over 20 years. I would say I have seen thousands of deaths. For 18 of those years I suffered the pain of thinking that many holding my hand would burn in hell for eternity. Some of these people took months to die, I got to know them before they died, and their life and family. Loving people who did not know God dying before my eyes. That was suffering sis. Yet, I've been released by the truth of U.R.. I don't suffer at work like that any more! I can be at peace with a God who writes Ecc 1:13. Why? Because God is Love sis!

Concordant OT Ecc 1:13 "It is an experience of evil Elohim [God] has given to the sons of humanity to humble them by it."

Any thing specific or just life in general? My suffering is more general, not any real physical pain so to say. Sissy stuff! I'm a R.N., I spend many hours in the ICU looking at patients who are suffering too, but they suffer physically. Many would love to only suffer like me. I have held the hands of many (Hundreds) dying patients just before they left this world. I can not tell you how many times, I've seen a warm loving person turn into a cold hard corpse in just a few minutes. You have no idea how fast it happens! You can see it mostly in their eyes! It's unexplainable. The eyes! You know they are gone! I have been a nurse for over 20 years. I would say I have seen thousands of deaths. For 18 of those years I suffered the pain of thinking that many holding my hand would burn in hell for eternity. Some of these people took months to die, I got to know them before they died, and their life and family. Loving people who did not know God dying before my eyes. That was suffering sis. Yet, I've been released by the truth of U.R.. I don't suffer at work like that any more! I can be at peace with a God who writes Ecc 1:13. Why? Because God is Love sis!

Concordant OT Ecc 1:13 "It is an experience of evil Elohim [God] has given to the sons of humanity to humble them by it."

Paul

That was beautiful Paul......I had no idea that you were an RN. That is so amazing to me that God has given you this gift of knowing His true heart, and how now you can be at peace in seeing so many pass away into the next life. It is truly a blessing to know the who God really is. I'd be a mess today if I still saw God the way I used too.......I thank Him every day for revealing His true Spirit to me.

jabcat

"But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will also be false teachers among you, who will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing swift destruction upon themselves". II Peter 2:1. Jesus is love, but part of that love was laying down His life for us, and that includes His stripes and blood, for our redemption and healing. God's blessing.

Christ is the only way to redemption, but all will find it through him. Suffering here need not be "from God", but is a consequence of man's own actions, multiplied and interweaved through millenia. Thus, a child may be innocent, yet endure agony, for no fault of its own, nor from God's persecution. It need not be God punishing unto the generations, but man's own actions through the generations finding an outlet. As to Islam, my own thoughts on that matter may be seen as totally illogical, no need to accept or reject them. I think that Muhammad was very likely one who did receive prophetic visions from God. Likely he was the one whom God hoped to use to bring His message to the people of Arabia. But I cannot see him as a prophet. I say this because I think that he bowed to the pressure and corrupted the message in giving it to his people. In doing so, he lost his right to be called "prophet". He delivered a message, but altered it to make it palatable, and in doing so has misled a multitude. Granted, I firmly believe these people will all be saved, through Christ. In the end run, perhaps the story should be include in a third testament,another human fails to obey His wishes.

Logged

martincisneros

I agree. God has chosen to join together all things in Christ. The thoughts of the original poster reflect one of the reasons that I do not like the term "Universalist" as it implies to many that there are is more than one path to God. Even putting the word "Christian" in front of Universalist brings confusion to many.

I much prefer referring to the doctrine of UR or the belief in the ultimate reconciliation of all things unto God and steer away from the Universalist label. This was one of my hesitations to the young man who was "starting" the Christian Universalist International group or whatever.

You cannot go wrong with sticking to Biblical terms as the reconciling or restitution of all things in Biblical, but I have not seen Universalist in the Bible so far.

John

A.E. Knoch, because of this very issue, said in "All in All" that he was emphatically not a Universalist. I weave in and out of being leery of the term as well. But I suppose that "Baptist" in the modern usage of the term as far as a denominational affiliation isn't really Biblical either. Neither is "Pentecostal" as far as a denominational emphasis, though those who hold to the term would relate it to the Book of Acts experience and would use it to identify themselves with those who cast out demons, spoke with new tongues, healed the sick, and raised the dead in the Bible. I suppose that I could retort that if they stop with that, then they've failed the John 14:12 imperative of Christ to do much greater things than He ever did in His first coming. The Biblical promise is of Emmanuel being poured out upon all flesh, and we've yet to see an entire generation embrace the Lordship of Jesus Christ because perhaps most of us have been amiss in the 1Timothy 2 prayer duty. Not slamming anybody. Right now as I'm typing this, I'm being corrected by the Lord and given specific instructions along those lines to pray it along with each meal. I don't know when is the last time that I really laid hold of that with my faith. I've even been amiss in faithfully praying over my food, and I've had too many close calls along those lines. Way too many! Hmmm...making what many people would consider "dessert time" a time for grabbing the Bread and Cup and proclaiming His death for all men until He comes...Hmmm....that's something to think and pray about.

On the other hand, if we're dogmatically anti- the Universalist label, then to a certain extent we sorta deny the heritage of those who went before us who wore the slur as a badge of honor, like Paul Dean, Hosea Ballou, Andrew Jukes, and a lot of others. The history books DEFINITELY label Elhanan Winchester, George De Benneville, Paul Seigvolk, Charles Chauncy, James Reilly, Jeremiah White, and a bunch of others as Universalists. And while some may argue that if they've not read any of their books that they might not consider themselves obligated to embrace those men as a part of their Christian heritage, to a certain degree that's a part of the thinking that invalidates our doctrine in the minds of a great many Arminians and Calvinists who point to the forefathers of their perspective as a part of the validation of their perspectives. It doesn't validate it beyond an area of sentimentality, but it still works as a bit of something empowering for baby Christians to think of all who've gone before them contending for what they consider to be the same truths. Wasn't the word "Christian" likewise originally a slur in the book of Acts that they couldn't find from Genesis to Malachi, but that they came to eventually embrace to where St. Peter says that if anyone is taking heat for being a "Christian," then they should consider "Christian" a badge of honor?

If we separate ourselves from the history, then we give ammo to the Calvinists and Arminians that want to consider us a recently emerging cult that has no basis in Christian history as a genuine Biblical perspective with a genuine Christian heritage. What Christian theologian doesn't brand Origen a Universalist? The point isn't about whether we follow them on all points of doctrine or not, but upon being connected with a long standing Christian tradition. That carries weight with many people, if you can point to the early origins of this. And how would they look it up, but through the Universalist tag that we've been labeled with by outsiders and perhaps by many of "our own" authors. When you disdain the tag "Universalist," then you open the door to something I've been hearing from a growing number of people that UR isn't a doctrine.

I'm not arguing against "relationship," so please don't misunderstand my point in the following:

If it isn't a doctrine, then why the controversy? And if it isn't a doctrine, then why the contention with Arminians and Calvinists, but for the fact that they're in error with their doctrines. And if, from time to time, we're not gently trying to persuade them of what the Bible actually says, then what are we doing? It's true that what begins with the letter must end in the spirit or it will produce nothing but death, but at the same time isn't UR the doctrine of the outworkings of all of God's judgments, of all of His purposes, and of His holy audacity to complete and rehead all things in Himself? If this is not correct Christian "doctrine," then I'm at a loss for what Christian doctrine is!! St. Paul tells us to contend for sound doctrine.

Logged

jabcat

If it isn't a doctrine, then why the controversy? And if it isn't a doctrine, then why the contention with Arminians and Calvinists, but for the fact that they're in error with their doctrines. And if, from time to time, we're not gently trying to persuade them of what the Bible actually says, then what are we doing? It's true that what begins with the letter must end in the spirit or it will produce nothing but death, but at the same time isn't UR the doctrine of the outworkings of all of God's judgments, of all of His purposes, and of His holy audacity to complete and rehead all things in Himself? If this is not correct Christian "doctrine," then I'm at a loss for what Christian doctrine is!! St. Paul tells us to contend for sound doctrine.

Amen. IMO, doctrine is not a dirty word. It's what doctrine and on what is it based? I have also struggled with what to call "this" as I share it with folks...I've sort of landed on "Ultimate Reconciliation", but that's not to say there's not other good ones or even better ones. If I do use the "U" word, I do like to add either Christian or Biblical to it.. God's blessing, James.

Logged

martincisneros

"But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will also be false teachers among you, who will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing swift destruction upon themselves". II Peter 2:1. Jesus is love, but part of that love was laying down His life for us, and that includes His stripes and blood, for our redemption and healing. God's blessing.

Very appropriate verse in the light of some of the recent threads that were pulled from public view. Hmmm...I think that that one helped me with a decision I was needing to make.

Logged

jabcat

I'm glad, thank you. Looking back in this thread, there's a real sampling, ranging from un-scriptural opinions, to confusion (which we all have at times, and I've always admitted, there's much for me to learn), to scripturally-based truths as shared by John and Tony.

IMO, the way we get through our confusion(s) to the truth, is by being led by the Spirit in scripturally sound revelations (which I believe is the only way the Spirit will lead, i.e., revealing truths within scripture, never against). IMO, when folks express confusion and are searching, such as the OP, is when we're most teachable, but also the most vulnerable. Hopefully we try to help by sharing Spirit-revealed scriptural truth. God's blessing, James.